Crazy Transit Pitches

HenryAlan said:
What is the minimal turn around time at South Station? It seems to me that it should be pretty quick for passengers to debark, the operator to walk to the other end, and a brakeman to conduct the required brake test. I'd think any given track could handle three trains per hour, does that sound about right? If so, then how many trains per hour does South Station handle during peak? I find it hard to believe that they are actually at capacity for more than occasional brief periods throughout the day.
Click to expand...

http://old.mbta.com/uploadedfiles/A...er Rail Report (01-Sept-10) - REPORT ONLY.pdf has some discussion at the bottom of the 48th page, and the 49th page, of the PDF, which have page numbers 44 and 45 at the bottom of the images of the page.
 
There's been a lot of talk of reviving ferries in Boston, and NYC has gone full steam ahead on ferries in the East River. So here's a thought:

Last year I visited Bangkok, where ferries shuttle tourists and locals up and down the Chao Phraya River. Theses aren't your typical ferries--they are small and fast, with the crew incredibly adept at docking, loading/off-loading passengers, and pushing off again quickly and efficiently. Docks are minimal, dwell times are minimal, and headways are around 10 minutes. This is truly a form of rapid transit on water.

Why can't Boston replicate this kind of ferry system? Rather than a bunch of point-to-point routes (Charlestown-Long Wharf, proposed North Station-Fan Pier, etc.) that are constrained in the ridership they can attract, why not a linear "Aqua Line" that links the entire inner harbor together:

Assembly Square-Chelsea Waterfront-Central Square-Charlestown Navy Yard-N. Station-Long Wharf-S. Station-Fan Pier-Design Center/Marine Industrial Park-Castle Island

The key to this is speed. None of these big, lumbering ferries that take forever to dock, load, and go. Smaller, faster boats, max 15 minute headways, and Charlie Card 2.0 integration would make this a hit and take full advantage of the harbor while being completely unique among US transit systems.
 
lexicon506 said:
There's been a lot of talk of reviving ferries in Boston, and NYC has gone full steam ahead on ferries in the East River. So here's a thought:

Last year I visited Bangkok, where ferries shuttle tourists and locals up and down the Chao Phraya River. Theses aren't your typical ferries--they are small and fast, with the crew incredibly adept at docking, loading/off-loading passengers, and pushing off again quickly and efficiently. Docks are minimal, dwell times are minimal, and headways are around 10 minutes. This is truly a form of rapid transit on water.

Why can't Boston replicate this kind of ferry system? Rather than a bunch of point-to-point routes (Charlestown-Long Wharf, proposed North Station-Fan Pier, etc.) that are constrained in the ridership they can attract, why not a linear "Aqua Line" that links the entire inner harbor together:

Assembly Square-Chelsea Waterfront-Central Square-Charlestown Navy Yard-N. Station-Long Wharf-S. Station-Fan Pier-Design Center/Marine Industrial Park-Castle Island

The key to this is speed. None of these big, lumbering ferries that take forever to dock, load, and go. Smaller, faster boats, max 15 minute headways, and Charlie Card 2.0 integration would make this a hit and take full advantage of the harbor while being completely unique among US transit systems.
Click to expand...

I would just wonder about the safety record on these boats, and the economics of smaller boats/less passengers.
 
bakgwailo said:
I would just wonder about the safety record on these boats, and the economics of smaller boats/less passengers.
Click to expand...

Those were my same initial reactions. Safety and economics likely make this a non-starter in anywhere in the US. You have to collect enough fares to pay the boat operator and you likely need more crew than just the driver (pilot? captain? What do you call the guy operating a ferry?) for safety reasons. Therefore a ferry needs to have more passengers than a bus, at minimum.
 
I too have taken those boats in Bangkok and loved them.

They would never work in the US, however. They aren't handicap accessible, for one. They'd also be 100% miserable in poor weather. By the time you enclose them and make them fully accessible to those with mobility issues, you're left with just a normal ferry.
 
^ Amsterdam does it well too. Two-sided ferries so you dont waste time turning around. Having the major transport hub immediately on the water helps too (Central Station there, NS & SS here).

The Long Wharf basin is a terrible spot for inner harbor ferry drop offs. No connectivity + super crowded water sheet.

There's a reason the established harbor ferries disappeared when the blue line opened tho.
 
Public officials would no doubt scream safety and accessibility, but there's no reason why those should be major obstacles.

Check out Amsterdam:
7B7BWw4l.jpg


And Venice:
V8P6NDJl.jpg


Fast, safe, accessible ferries. Amsterdam's slightly bulkier ferry works well in a cold-weather climate, but Venice's could easily be enclosed as well.
 
We've had the ferry discussion so many times on here, and it always comes down to three basic problems: Most potential ferry docks are too long a walk from actual destinations, most potential routes already have better transit on them, and frequencies are generally limited. That's why they're used where they currently are: to Charlestown which has poor service otherwise, and on longer coastal routes where limited frequency is okay and they can take a speed advantage on open water.
 
The EGE said:
We've had the ferry discussion so many times on here, and it always comes down to three basic problems: Most potential ferry docks are too long a walk from actual destinations, most potential routes already have better transit on them, and frequencies are generally limited. That's why they're used where they currently are: to Charlestown which has poor service otherwise, and on longer coastal routes where limited frequency is okay and they can take a speed advantage on open water.
Click to expand...

Would be good to see some additional piers with good pedestrian connections in closer proximity to North and South Station. Those could be close walks to connect to transit. Aquarium station is already pretty close to where a lot of ferries/taxis dock, but it seems to be near or at capacity. Water Taxi stop at Wynn/Assemby would be a potential Orange Line connection with a pedestrian bridge/connection.

A water taxi between North and South Station would be a good option. I think it will be good to see how popular the Wynn water taxi service is going to be as a good next step.
 
There are about five posts starting at http://www.archboston.org/community/showthread.php?p=311384#post311384 that were getting off topic there, so I'm going to continue asking questions along those lines here.

I'm now wondering if we could turn the entire three lanes of Essex St from Kingston St to Surface Rd into a portal, staying at the current elevation at Kingston St, and being one level down at Surface Rd. There seems to be a bit more than 300' available, so it's probably doable with something like a 5% or 6% grade (and if that's too steep, continuing the ramp past Kingston St and lowering the part of Kingston St just south of Essex St along with forcing traffic on Kingston St approaching Essex St from the north to turn onto Ave de Lafayette might also be an option).

The idea is that the southernmost lane of Essex St would carry eastbound traffic both to the I-93 southbound on ramp (which would probably merge underground with traffic from the surface portal connecting from Surface Rd), and to the south station bus tunnel. The middle lane would carry eastbound traffic to the I-93 northbound on ramp (which would lose its surface portal, creating additional park land). The northern lane would be a westbound bus only lane. There'd probably have to be a light under what is now the Essex St / Surface Rd intersection to stop that middle lane from proceeding onto I-93 north when a westbound bus is approaching the portal.

Traffic on Essex St wanting to get to or across Surface Rd would have to be redirected to Harrison and Kneeland, and between that and losing the light for Essex to I-93 southbound at Surface Rd hopefully we'd reduce the queuing on Essex between Kingston St and Surface Rd enough to deal with the reallocation of the northern lane as a contraflow bus lane.

You probably have to build narrower than 11' retaining walls under the sidewalk just east of Kingston St on both sides of Essex St unless the building foundation walls are sufficient to not need additional retaining walls. Those buildings do look like they're probably not terribly historic, at least. The sidewalks themselves would be maintained (or rebuilt) at their current elevations with walls to prevent people from falling into the portal.
 
A new light rail line from East Cambridge To Boston Landing using the Grand Junction ROW to the BU area then the Commuter Rail right of way from BU to Boston Landing. An extension all the way out to Newton Corner would be nice but not necessary).

Preferably connect it to the Green Line Extension so that the line branches off from the GLX near the Twin City Plaza.

This would bring rapid transit to Boston Landing, the new Allston Yards development, Allston Center, and additional parts of the Kendall/MIT area, along with the Southern section of Cambridgeport.

This would also connect the Blue Line to Kendall using one seat as it would be a continuation of another green line.

A Twin City Plaza stop could also allow redevelopment in that area.

Within Kendall a Mass Ave stop would serve a dense area that is still a far walk from Central and Kendall.

Just past Simmons Hall could sit another spot, which would be a good spot to put an additional stop. It's a wasteland now but could be a great location for some transit orientated development.
 
Last edited:
I'm pretty sure GJ is never going to happen now since Cambridge is putting in the trail there and you'd need that room to be able to get it double track all the way.
 
I really hope they keep that right of way open. It would be a great spot for a future urban ring.
 
tysmith95 said:
I really hope they keep that right of way open. It would be a great spot for a future urban ring.
Click to expand...

Metro Boston is a collection of provincial little towns, Cambridge being one, who don't do much if any planning or futuring. They just throw up projects without regard for future transit or other development. Another example among many is the ROW in Point of Pines Revere that could have been used for a Blue Line extension but was eaten up by apartments.

So Cambridge and MIT throw up this new trail limiting the railway to a single track with no room for a future two-track Urban Ring light rail. Brilliant. The same zero-sighted work they've allowed to choke up the Alewife area.
 
Charlie_mta said:
Metro Boston is a collection of provincial little towns, Cambridge being one, who don't do much if any planning or futuring. They just throw up projects without regard for future transit or other development. Another example among many is the ROW in Point of Pines Revere that could have been used for a Blue Line extension but was eaten up by apartments.

So Cambridge and MIT throw up this new trail limiting the railway to a single track with no room for a future two-track Urban Ring light rail. Brilliant. The same zero-sighted work they've allowed to choke up the Alewife area.
Click to expand...

Please read what he was responding to—the link I posted clearly shows that double-track rail and a path can exist side by side.
 
I had read the report and saw the typical sections. Then on another page it showed only one track fitting under Memorial Drive. I doubt if a two-track line will fit along the entire corridor with the proposed path using up the scarce existing space, despite what their typical sections show.
 
This is a pretty broad level question, not so much a pitch, but does anyone have any particular insight on tunneling under ‘main drags’ sorts of roads? Like rt 1, 3a, 138, etc. Your usual 4-lane divided routes, filled with strip malls, auto dealerships, and shopping plazas.

At a cursory glance, setting aside whether or not the density itself merits this sort of mass transit, it seems that with the road being so wide and the land next to the roud so often large parking lots, that it would be relatively well-suited to such projects.
 
^ Those sort of landscapes would be better suited to grade-level light rail, with dense infill TOD? Usually by narrowing lanes, medians, shoulders, and street parking... you can maintain an approximately comparable LOS for traffic while adding transit at lower cost than for tunneling (especially given station costs).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top